On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:59:08 -0400, Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:07:12AM -0700, Tom wrote: ..really? ;-) > > > ..as in; "Where _is_ Osama and Saddam?". And playing the > > > "west bank settler" games on the Iraqis, is _not_ gonna help. > By waging war on Iraq when there was no clear link between Iraq and Al > Quaeda and when there was no clear evidence of weapons of mass > destruction, the U.S. wanted to show that they can wage war without > even making up semi-coherent reasons. I mean Bush kept > flip-flopping: > This is about weapons of mass destruction, > then > This is about terrorism > then > This is about regime change ..the removal of _any_ "terrorist" war criminal regime is a requirement to _any_ legal regime: Check out "Art. 85 Repression of breaches of this Protocol", "Art. 86 Failure to act", "Art. 87 Duty of commanders", "Art. 88 Mutual assistance in criminal matters", "Art. 89 Co-operation" and "Art. 90 International Fact-Finding Commission" of http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVART?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=5#5 -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]